Vatican's Doctrine Cheif: Pius X Society Must Accept Vatican II Teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe someone here can help me with something. The Second Vatican Council was “pastoral” and not dogmatic. There were old dogmas mentioned, but no new dogmas and the SSPX does not deny any dogmas of the Church. So, of what dogmatic content is the Archbishop refering?
 
From the article.
He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium.”
Click to expand...
“Whatever is dogmatic can never be negotiated,” he said, while still expressing hope that the members of the Society of Pius X “can overcome their difficulties, their ideological restrictions so that we can work together to proclaim Christ as the Light of the World.”
Click to expand...
Just to be clear here, the Dogmatic documents of Vatican II are clearly marked Dogmatic and each one of them refers to and confirms previous council teachings. AFAIK the society has never officially rejected any previous council teachings, so I’m a little confused about what the article states here. Crimsonflyboy has a point.
 
Interesting in terms of both timing and content.

FWIW & IMHO, the Archbishop’s quotes are much more measured and balanced than I would have imagined, based on some of the more public criticisms.

Let us pray for his success in general and in the process of reconciliation with the SSPX.
 
ProVobis said:
Just to be clear here, the Dogmatic documents of Vatican II are clearly marked Dogmatic and each one of them refers to and confirms previous council teachings. AFAIK the society has never officially rejected any previous council teachings, so I’m a little confused about what the article states here.

Yes, for example, Lumen Gentium was issued as a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

However, not all Varican II documents were dogmatic (e.g. the Decree on Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites).
ProVobis;9562602:
Crimsonflyboy has a point.
Click to expand...
:confused: Did he not suggest the opposite?

Wouldn’t documents that reaffirm previously establish dogma be properly referred to as “dogmatic” (of or relating to dogma)?
Click to expand...
 
Of course I can’t really tell what’s being referred to, but “subsists in” sure is a hot button in contradistinction to “is”…and I bet that’s at least one point of contention…
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
Click to expand...
LG emphasis added
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Yes, for example, Lumen Gentium was issued as a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

However, not all Varican II documents were dogmatic (e.g. the Decree on Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites).

Wouldn’t documents that reaffirm previously establish dogma be properly referred to as “dogmatic” (of or relating to dogma)?
Click to expand...
That is my understanding as well. CONSTITUTIO DOGMATICA DE ECCLESIA
would be the actual headings on the documents, Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum.

ewtn.com/library/councils/v2all.htm
 
ByzCathCantor said:
ProVobis;9562602:
Just to be clear here, the Dogmatic documents of Vatican II are clearly marked Dogmatic and each one of them refers to and confirms previous council teachings. AFAIK the society has never officially rejected any previous council teachings, so I’m a little confused about what the article states here.

Yes, for example, Lumen Gentium
Click to expand...
was issued as a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

However, not all Varican II documents were dogmatic (e.g. the Decree on Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites).

:confused: Did he not suggest the opposite?

Wouldn’t documents that reaffirm previously establish dogma be properly referred to as “dogmatic” (of or relating to dogma)?

There were no new dogmas defined during the council, only old dogmas. The SSPX does no deny any dogmas.
Click to expand...
 
johnnykins said:
Of course I can’t really tell what’s being referred to, but “subsists in” sure is a hot button in contradistinction to “is”…and I bet that’s at least one point of contention…
LG emphasis added
Click to expand...
“subsists in” is a major point of contention. The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, not merely part of it.
 
Crimsonflyboy said:
“subsists in” is a major point of contention. The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, not merely part of it.
Click to expand...
Certainly the language is a hot button, but not necessarily inconsistent though others would disagree with that. Like so many things it depends on what exactly you mean…

Your own quote, above, sort of highlights some of the difficulties. If the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church that, to me, implies that what we call the “Catholic Church” is larger than the “Church of Christ.” That is the Church of Christ is wholly contained within what is called the “Catholic Church” but that they may not be co-extensive.

For example, the transcendent Spotless Bride of Christ, being the Church of Christ, is found entirely within the Catholic Church. To the extent one equates the Catholic Church and the Spotless Bride of Christ then to that extent the catholic Church IS the Church of Christ.

However, when one speaks of the Catholic Church as that body which includes all manner of sinners then to that extent where sinners cannot be part of the Spotless Bride of Christ - because they are sinful - then to that extent the Catholic Church includes elements beyond the Church of Christ. Within the temporal world - and subject to the mystery of predestination - sinners (including those in actual mortal sin) are formally part of what we call the Catholic Church in common parlance. It would make what we typically call the Catholic Church something larger than the Church of Christ. Indeed many of such sinners will repent and in the timelessness of eternity will be revealed as part of the Church of Christ…yet, too, some will not repent and die outside the Church that they are a formal member of. A conundrum for expressing exactly what we mean.

Within the context of VII which emphasizes the Pilgrim nature of the Catholic Church on earth and includes sinners - some of whom will not die in a state of grace - use of “subsists in” is simply a natural outgrowth of that language. Whereas when, as in other times, the language is such as to emphasize the Spotless Bride of Christ, then the language of “is” is more suitable. The problem comes as two different points of view of the same thing are expressed leading to different conclusions.

It seems to me that we get glimpses of parts of the Church as seen within the eternal and temporal context, but that does not mean that the expressions used to describe those glimpses are wrong - only limited to the part being described. In the same way we get only glimpses of the totality of God and our language and senses express only that part. Another view may be wrong, but it may just be another view of a limited part and within that context completely OK.
 
Maybe I am wrong but the Society of Saint Pius X strikes me as very prideful. To me, that is the reason why they have not yet reconciled with the Church as a whole. They are too prideful to admit that maybe, just maybe, they might be wrong on some things.
 
I think the title is unfortunately inaccurate, at least as far as the quotes go. The preamble must be accepted, and doctrine of the Church must be accepted, but the only mention of Vatican II is that negotiation on Vatican II is ended. In other words, there is a range of disagreement they may hold, but they need to accept that it is they who are in disagreement with the Church, who holds the authoritiative teaching.

Some of the documents are pastoral. The reformulations are done for pastoral purposes. They should be free to disagree with the prudence of the wording, but this clamor that the Church is in error must cease. “Pastoral” is a two-edged sword. Similarly, the claim that the Church Council only reiterated dogma is a two-edged sword for the SSPX. The claim of error in any ecumenical church council must of necessity be fraught with a logical contradiction somewhere.
 
Shouldn’t Vatican II be Used as a Bridge, Not as a Wedge?
Why do those who accept as relevant Vatican II’s non-dogmatic, “pastoral” suggestions and who are committed to implementing the concepts and trends introduced at the Council, violate both Vatican II’s letter and spirit by using the Council as a wedge to create division, discord and scandal within the Church, instead of as a bridge to understand, harmonize, and respect fellow Catholics that do not fully agree with them?

It should be evident that it is completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of Vatican II to unjustly demand that Catholics who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic concepts and pastoral suggestions violate their informed conscience to get them to agree.

Did not the Council unequivocally condemn bullying, coercion, force or intimidation? How is it that Council partisans occupying the Church’s highest offices are constantly observed bullying, and trying to coerce, force, or intimidate into submission otherwise faithful Catholics who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with them when it comes to the Council’s pastoral and non-dogmatic suggestions?

To restore unity in the Church, shouldn’t Vatican II partisans currently occupying the Church’s highest offices honor the wise axiom of the great St. Augustine that should always guide us as Christians: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity”?

In fidelity to the mind of the Church and to Vatican II itself, shouldn’t Vatican II partisans unequivocally oppose bullying, coercion, psychological pressure or intimidation against those who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic suggestions? Should not Catholics unequivocally oppose use of the Council as a wedge to divide, disunite or sow discord among Catholics faithful to the Magisterium?

Can we all agree that this fabricated “crisis” within the Church not only injures the Body of Christ, but is a source of scandal to the World that those currently occupying the highest offices in the Church must work to end, if their commitment to Vatican II is truly genuine and sincere?
 
ProVobis said:
Just to be clear here, the Dogmatic documents of Vatican II are clearly marked Dogmatic and each one of them refers to and confirms previous council teachings. AFAIK the society has never officially rejected any previous council teachings, so I’m a little confused about what the article states here. Crimsonflyboy has a point.
Click to expand...
It’s like the SSPX saying that they recognise papal authority. It doesn’t mean they have ever rejected papal authority, but it’s good to be clear on your stand before you begin negotiations. 🙂
 
It’s not the “dogmas” of Vatican II (whatever they are) that are the problem. Its the ambiguous methods of the Council that are at issue to traditionalists. Vatican II can interpreted in a traditional manner but it can also be interpreted in a heretical manner as well and that is unacceptable. Orthodoxy by its very nature clarifies the faith. Vatican II obscures it. It must be revisited or the chaos in the Church (Hindu celebrations in Catholic altars, prelates denying supercessionism, and Popes kissing Korans) will continue.
 
InnocentFortune said:
Orthodoxy by its very nature clarifies the faith. Vatican II obscures it. It must be revisited or the chaos in the Church (Hindu celebrations in Catholic altars, prelates denying supercessionism, and Popes kissing Korans) will continue.
Click to expand...
I was with you until the very end, then the Quran reference. Not to excuse it nor to make light of the understandable reactions of many, including the great Chaldean Catholics whom I admire and respect, but to at least suggest that the Holy Father could be given some benefit of the doubt. Jimmy Akins presents some thoughts in this blog post. At least be open to the possibility that no harm or offense was intended.
 
It doesn’t matter if harm was intended or not the action is inexcusable. Many Christians went to their deaths rather than perform similar gestures. Because many modern Christians idolize JPII, it has made him immune to criticism. If any other Christian had done such a thing there would be howls for his immediate excommunication. But alas, the “great” one is beyond reproach even bowing and kissing the words of apostasy.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Clearly forgiveness is not an option …

… yet this “Great One”, beyond reproach as you say, sought out and forgave the very man who attempted to take his life.

What a horror!
Click to expand...
He not the first person in history to ever forgive a would be assassin so its not that big a deal. But the damage to the church left in his wake will be his legacy for generations. Just thank him every time you see an altar girl or hear a catholic pedophile joke. If you think he was a great pope because he forgave an assassin despite the terrible condition of the church, an apostasy not seen since the Arian heresy, then there’s no convincing you. You have your eyes wide shut.
 
InnocentFortune said:
He not the first person in history to ever forgive a would be assassin so its not that big a deal. But the damage to the church left in his wake will be his legacy for generations. Just thank him every time you see an altar girl or hear a catholic pedophile joke. If you think he was a great pope because he forgave an assassin despite the terrible condition of the church, an apostasy not seen since the Arian heresy, then there’s no convincing you. You have your eyes wide shut.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are right. After reading this, I am now convinced the Church is in dreadful condition.

Then again, on my end of the spectrum, we do not have altar girls, we have a stable form of Liturgy, and after a long era of suppression of tradition despite allegiance to the Catholic Church (perfected by the blood of Martyrs of recent blessed memeory), we from the Eastern traditions can look back at the legacy of that Papacy and the changes resulting from it a little differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top